(PS) Ramirez v. Haaland ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DON EPIGMENIO RAMIREZ., No. 2:19-CV-0845-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 DAVID BERNHARDT, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the 18 Court is Plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 48, for reconsideration of the Court’s January 22, 2020, 19 order denying appointment of counsel. 20 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), the Court may grant reconsideration 21 of a final judgment and any order based on: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable 22 neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which, with reasonable diligence, could not have been 23 discovered within ten days of entry of judgment; and (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct 24 of an opposing party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(3). A motion for reconsideration on any of 25 these grounds must be brought within one year of entry of judgment or the order being 26 challenged. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Under Rule 60(b), the Court may also grant 27 reconsideration if: (1) the judgment is void; (2) the judgement has been satisfied, released, or 28 discharged, an earlier judgment has been reversed or vacated, or applying the judgment 1 prospectively is no longer equitable; and (3) any other reason that justifies relief. See Fed. R. 2 Civ. P. 60(b)(4)-(6). A motion for reconsideration on any of these grounds must be brought 3 “within a reasonable time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). 4 Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion is untimely as a motion for 5 reconsideration because it was not filed within one year of the January 22, 2020, order denying 6 counsel. The Court further finds that the Plaintiff’s motion was not filed within a reasonable time 7 of the subject order, having been filed two-and-a-half year later. The Court will, however, 8 construe Plaintiff’s motion as a renewed motion for the appointment of counsel. 9 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to 10 require counsel to represent indigent litigants in civil cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist. 11 Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the Court may request the 12 voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 13 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 14 A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success 15 on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims on his own in light of the 16 complexity of the legal issues involved. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. Neither factor is 17 dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision. See id. In Terrell, the 18 Ninth Circuit concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion with respect to appointment 19 of counsel because: 20 . . . Terrell demonstrated sufficient writing ability and legal knowledge to articulate his claim. The facts he alleged and the issues he raised were not 21 of substantial complexity. The compelling evidence against Terrell made it extremely unlikely that he would succeed on the merits. 22 Id. at 1017. 23 In the present case, the Court does not at this time find the required exceptional 24 circumstances. First, Plaintiff has not outlined any exceptional circumstances. Instead, Plaintiff 25 cites the common circumstances of indigency and lack of legal education. Second, a review of 26 the docket in this case reflects that Plaintiff has been able to articulate himself adequately on his 27 own. In this regard, the Court observes that Plaintiff was able to successfully defend against 28 1 | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Third, as explained in the Court’s order resolving 2 | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the sole remaining issue to be tried is neither legally 3 | nor factually complex. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion, ECF No. 48, 5 | which is construed as a motion for the appointment of counsel, is denied. 6 7 | Dated: July 25, 2022 Ssvcqo_ 8 DENNIS M. COTA 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28